An article published in the Guardian is making the rounds quite rapidly among my social media circles. The article, coverage of a report by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, makes some pretty bold statements about the efficacy of homeopathy – namely that it doesn’t work:

But the NHMRC review, conducted by a working committee of medical experts, said it had no impact on a range of conditions and illnesses including asthma, arthritis, sleep disturbances, cold and flu, chronic fatigue syndrome, eczema, cholera, burns, malaria and heroin addiction. For the 68 conditions – including those listed – the review either concluded definitively that homeopathy was not more effective than a placebo, or at the very least there was no reliable evidence to suggest it was.

The skeptics in my Facebook and Twitter feeds are, perhaps unsurprisingly, feeling pretty vindicated by this report. They (we) have been saying for quite some time that homeopathy is nothing more than a hoax perpetrated against a credible public by people who are either so craven as to intentionally exploit people’s ignorance, or so irresponsible as to refuse to examine the abundant scientific evidence that homeopathy is simply a placebo with an elaborate ritual preceeding it. I myself have participated in a couple of demonstrations of the fact that homeopathy simply does not work, both times taking an “overdose” of homeopathic “sleeping pills” that are, in fact, nothing more than sugar pills.

However, if you are not close friends with someone in the skeptics community, or if you simply don’t care to follow this particular debate, you might find yourself a bit lost. I thought I would provide my somewhat-informed take on this report and what lessons we should take away from it. … Continue Reading

On Monday, a Missouri Grand Jury decided that when a police officer kills an unarmed young person, no crime has been committed as long as the officer can spin a fanciful tale of The Incredible Nigger Hulk. That officer not only need not be locked up, decided the Grand Jury, but he doesn’t even need to see the inside of a courtroom. He doesn’t need to be cross-examined, his story doesn’t have to be questioned, there need be nothing more than the pathetic ghost of a due process that the people of Ferguson have been told to shut up and wait for.

Predictably, the residents of Ferguson weren’t pleased with the result. Peaceful protest and non-peaceful protest filled the streets, shut down traffic, and in the latter case, destroyed many local businesses and other property. In response to the protests (which have, by the way, been called “riots” in the media from day 1, regardless of the predominantly peaceful nature. Until the cops showed up, at least), a chorus of voices has gone up condemning violence and looting. This would be a defensible position from people on the ground in Ferguson, or people who are leading specific civil rights projects relevant to police brutality – in that case, it’s brand management and promotion. Nothing wrong with that.

The problem, in my eyes, is that the “violence solves nothing” crowd has a broad swath of representation from people with absolutely no connection to the issue. It is the ever-present spectre of respectability politics manifesting itself as a treatise about the merits of violent vs. non-violent protest. It is an excuse to remove one’s self from any sense of responsibility or complicity in the situation that has triggered the violence – “well, I agree that things are bad, but that’s no excuse to be violent!”

In response to this sneer disguised as a moral stand, I sent out a couple of tweets: … Continue Reading

Share this:

Like this:

A friend on Facebook recently asked about whether or not I think “The Friend Zone” exists. I gave a short (for me) response, but I wanted to flesh out where I am in this debate more fully. For some personal history on where I once was on this topic, I encourage you to read my post: I Was a Nice Guy™.

Also, the subject matter of this post requires me to be far more cisnormative and heteronormative than I usually try to be – I hope the reason for this writing choice is clear from the context of the post (but I will gratefully receive any offered criticisms if I overstep that justification).

What you attain after you fail to impress a woman you’re attracted to. Usually initiated by the woman saying, “You’re such a good friend”. Usually associated with long days of suffering and watching your love interest hop from one bad relationship to another. Verb tense is “Friend-ed”.

One should not fail to note, by the way, the gendered language in the definition. We will return to this later in the discussion.

The more generous definition of the Friend Zone describes a situation in which one person (‘the friender’) maintains a non-romantic relationship with a person who would prefer to have a romantic one (‘the friended’). Reasons for this situation vary. In some cases, the friender is simply unaware of the friended’s interest, perhaps wilfully so. In other, more nefarious cases, the friender is aware of the non-reciprocated interest but keeps the friended person around for reasons of psychological self-gratification or because the friended provides some sort of benefit (companionship, emotional support, sometimes even material support). In the latter case, the friender is exploiting the romantic feelings of the friended in order to maintain a relationship that, in the absence of the romantic interest (and tantalizingly possible romantic involvement), would not persist. The key is that the friended does not derive the desired benefit from the relationship, and has either decided to ‘settle’ or is hoping that some day romantic reciprocation will occur.

The least generous definition of the Friend Zone is one in which the friended party is a predator, waiting for a lapse in judgement or self-restraint in order to foist a romantic relationship on the friender. Friended people are misrepresenting themselves as genuine friends as part of a ploy to gain the confidence of the friender. The friender believes that the relationship is organic and free of sexual potential, and that both parties spend time together simply because they enjoy each other’s company – as friends do. Under this definition, it is the friended who is misrepresenting the relationship, and the friender who is the wronged party.

It is my position that, at some point in time, both of these definitions have accurately described a situation between two people. There are a broad variety of possible relationships between human beings, and some of those are not constructive or healthy. There are, almost certainly, people who have exploited someone’s romantic interest for their own selfish purposes. There are, almost certainly, people who have dissembled platonic interest solely as part of a gambit to propagate a sexual encounter. … Continue Reading

Share this:

Like this:

Today is my 30th birthday. I know a lot of people talk about how getting older is a drag, and how turning 30 is the end of something. For my part, I’m actually really excited for my 30s. I have devoted most of my 20s to building a scaffolding for future success (in my job, in my musical career, in my personal relationships) – my 30s are when I am planning on building some real things on top of that scaffolding. There’s a lot of really great things happening in my life as I head into 30, and I am optimistic about things getting even better.

If you were inclined to do something nice/special for me on this birthiest of days, here’s a list of cheap/free things you can do that would make me very happy.

1: Read My Blog

You’re already doing this one right now, so thanks! But I’ve written a bunch of other things that I think deserve to be read. If you go to the blog’s front page, there is a pulldown menu on the top left that allows you to access 4 years of archived posts. Something there may interest you.

2: Become a Facebook Fan

I have been sinking a non-trivial amount of my time and effort into my music projects, all of which is documented on my Facebook page. There are free mp3s, Youtube videos, pictures, and a whole bunch of other stuff that is available for free. I do it all with the hopes that people will listen and enjoy, so I hope that you will listen and enjoy.

I do have a personal Facebook account, but I don’t add people I haven’t met in person (or unless I’ve had long-standing online interactions with them, in some rare cases).

3: Become a Patreon Sponsor

If you have a couple of extra bucks kicking around, please consider sponsoring me on Patreon.com. I write, record, and release original tunes roughly once every couple of months. Patreon sponsors pledge a small amount of money (the lowest level is $1) for each song I release, and get rewards for doing so on a sliding scale. The money I make on Patreon goes toward purchasing studio time to make professional-quality recordings of my music. If you’ve got at least 30-50 cents a month, consider throwing some of that my way!

I try to keep all of my channels free of boring/spam content (although no promises about my Twitter feed), so if you’re interested in what’s going on in my life, that’s a really good way to accomplish that.

If you live in the Vancouver area, I am playing two shows this week. On Thursday I will be playing with my new band The Sheets at the Blarney Stone in Gastown. This is what The Sheets sound like. I’m not in that video, but imagine more fiddle (and less creepy murder-light), and you’ll be somewhere in the ballpark. There is no cover on Thursdays.

On Friday I am playing a solo show at Clough Club, also in Gastown. This is what my solo set sounds like. Clough also has no cover. My set is a mix of original tunes and covers, and people usually seem to enjoy it. If you’re around, and you like live music, you can come see some.

7: Come to my party

I’ll be at Clough Club on Saturday as well, for the formal celebration. The more the merrier, although if you’re meeting me in person for the first time, you won’t be seeing me at my best (although I will be at my most distracted). There will also be fantastic live music courtesy of Alex Maher. This is what Alex Maher sounds like.

That’s the list. I would be very happy if you did any of these things, as they are all quite meaningful to me. For my part, you can expect more writing, more music, and more new endeavours. I’m looking forward, as always, to sharing that process with you.

Thank you!

Share this:

Like this:

I received an invitation to provide comment on a piece that was going up in Religion News about whether or not Richard Dawkins is an ‘asset’ or a ‘liability’ to ‘movement atheism’. The author chose not to use any of my comments (or to ask me any follow-up questions), which was her prerogative, albeit a decision I am personally disappointed by. What follows is what I wrote in response to the invitation, with slight edits that I will explain as a post scriptum.

As I said in my earlier e-mail, the answer to your question is “no”. Richard Dawkins is not an asset or a liability to movement atheism. The question makes a number of presumptions that I think are ultimately misguided.

First, movement atheism doesn’t have a single set of goals. Unlike pro-choice activism or civil rights activism, the atheism movement has several goals, some of which are in direct contradiction to others. Many within the movement are working for church/state separation, others are looking to establish atheist communities as an alternative to the religious monopoly on communal organization. Still others simply want to be able to openly be atheist without having to hide their nonbelief, while others are actively involved in developing counterapologetic arguments to ensure that religious claims do not go unchallenged. These are all activities of “movement atheism” that are not aimed at an overarching shared goal. “Movement atheism” therefore cannot and should not be thought of as a unified group that any individual could be an asset or liability to. … Continue Reading

Share this:

Like this:

Longtime readers may remember that religion used to be a primary, rather than incidental focus of this blog. It may be the case that writing for Canadian Atheist and then moving to Freethought Blogs took some of the fun out of being a combative atheist. It could just be that I had more pressing questions rattling around in my brain. At any rate, I haven’t done a pure religious critique in a while, so pardon me if the rust shows through.

I read the Old Testament when I was in high school. Being a longtime fan (and voracious reader) of Greek mythology, I immediately recognized the stamp of myth on the stories of Jonah and the Giant Fish, Noah’s Ark, the Walls of Jericho, you name it. Stories are important cultural signifiers that transcend generations and give us some common ground. It didn’t strike me as particularly peculiar that a group of nomadic people whose written language arrived many generations after many serious events in their history would have kept their history alive in story form. It seems equally non-controversial to imagine that, as stories tend to do, the histories and the fables and legends became blended over multiple tellings. For someone who, even at the time, wasn’t a literalist believer, the idea that a literal super-strong Samson probably didn’t actually exist in the way he’s depicted didn’t matter much to me. What was important were the lessons of the Bible. It would take me a few more years to realize how monstrous many of those lessons actually are.

Similarly and non-coincidentally, I began to view the New Testament as a work of fictionalized history. At the time I thought Jesus was probably literally real, and that the writing in the Gospels needed to be viewed in context of the politics of the time. Understanding the tension that would have existed between, for example, the Pharisees and the Roman Empire at the time, helped put things like the Sermon on the Mount into a reasonable context – Jesus wasn’t speaking for eternal attribution, he was talking about the issues of the time. Judas wasn’t some evil conniver, he was a run-of-the-mill political zealot who sought to install new leadership by betraying the old one. And so on, in a most run-of-the-mill sort of way. … Continue Reading

Like this:

These days you can’t see who’s in cahoots, ’cause now the KKK wears 3-piece suits.
– Chuck D, “Rebirth”

In early August, 1969, members of Charles Manson’s “family” murdered Rosemary and Leno LaBianca. Police would find the words “Helter Skelter” written on the walls in the blood of one of the victims – a reference to Manson’s belief that a population of angry and disaffected black people would rise and violently confront their white oppressors. Manson’s intention was to use the murder of the LaBiancas and others to trigger the beginning of the “race war” that he knew was coming. It never materialized.

To this day, despite the track record of who the aggressors are in “race wars” (hint: it’s pretty much never black people), fears abound of an angry mob of savage blacks rising up and waging war on a beleaguered and long-suffering white population. In fact, in preparing to write this piece, I took a little trip through the Google looking glass and found repeated references to “the coming race war”, on pretty much exactly the kinds of sites you’d expect. Many of them made reference to the current “hidden” race war that only the likes of Glenn Beck seem to possess the wisdom to see. Remember the knockout game? Well these guys sure do, judging by the comment threads.

Whether it’s in Detroit or Black Wall Street or at Charles Manson’s house, white America has been in the thrall of its fear of “Helter Skelter” for pretty much forever. The myth, created and nurtured by white supremacy, of the savagery and inherent criminality of black people has resulted in repeated violent backlash against black communities. Backlash, incidentally, not against actual harms or danger, but against the fear of harm and danger that never seem to actually bear fruit. White America segregates itself from its black population, drinks deeply of its own racist stereotyping, becomes drunk on its own panic, and then arms itself to “defend” itself from the Negro bogeymen of its own imagination. With predictably tragic results.

Share this:

Like this:

This post is going to be more navel-gazey than is normal for this blog. That’s not a disclaimer of apology, just a ‘heads up’. This piece is also very much rooted in gender binary language, and that is a disclaimer of apology. I am speaking most often from my own experience. As a mono cis hetero guy, my romantic experience falls along a gender binary with a single partner. This is not to elevate or normalize mono cishet relationships above others, but I don’t want to speak too far out of my own depth. I am sure that relationships between queer and poly people have dimensions that I simply cannot address, and I don’t want to do it hamfistedly. I am very interested to hear what parts of this post do and don’t resonate with your own experiences, particularly if they are different from my own.

I am sure that I’ve made oblique reference to this before, perhaps even on this blog, but my sexual and dating history are perhaps a bit atypical. I say ‘perhaps’ because a pretty decent argument can be made that everyone’s dating history is atypical. However, from the standpoint that the average age at which people in Canada have their first sexual encounter is some time in their teens, my history is slightly to noticably atypical. This has a lot of explanations, some of which I am capable of explaining in some detail; others that I am still puzzled over. I’ve talked a bit about this process in a post I wrote a couple of years ago:

After a year spent in a different doomed-to-fail relationship in my first year of undergraduate (this time I ended things, and for what at the time seemed like noble reasons), I embarked on a long journey into my own bruised psyche to try and figure out what it was about me that made me so undesirable while everyone else had girlfriends (author’s note: most of my friends at the time were single). It was an endless pattern: I’d meet someone, we’d hit it off, I’d eventually work up the courage to ask her out, and then I’d get rejected. In my feelings of dejected misery and frustration and need for self-affirmation, and because there was a whole intellectual institution created around it, I embraced the “nice guys don’t get laid” myth wholeheartedly.

So, I didn’t get laid a lot. That “endless pattern” lasted, for the most part, for around 8 years. After I broke up with Jane (not her real name) in fall of 2004, I didn’t enter into another committed relationship until spring of 2012. During that intervening period, I had a small handful of flings with women, but nothing that lasted longer than 6 weeks or so. None of this did anything to disabuse me of the notion that I was, at some deep, fundamental level, incapable of being loved or having a lasting, meaningful relationship. It wasn’t all bad, as I’ll discuss further down the page, but there were a lot of pretty despondent nights. … Continue Reading

Share this:

Like this:

By now the vast majority of you will have heard of the racist comments made by Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, an NBA team. Sterling was taped during a phone conversation with his girlfriend V. Stiviano, asking her not to bring black people to games with her. This is, apparently, part of a long history of racist comments made by Sterling over the course of this conversation and over a number of incidents stretching back many years. The response has been quick and severe, with players, owners, sports fans, and team sponsors all moving to condemn the comments and the man who made them.

Is Donald Sterling a racist?

Whether or not Donald Sterling is “a racist” is a question that I find profoundly boring. As I have said many times before, I do not recognize the validity of the category “a racist”. There seems to be no behaviour or set of behaviours that we can agree on to define what “a racist” is. All we know about “racists” are that nobody who is ever accused of being one, nor anyone who supports or is otherwise allied with the accused, will accept the label. Then there is something about how many bones in that person’s body are racist. And then some jiu-jitsu about who is really “a racist”. The pattern is as predictable as it is tiresome.

I am similarly not interested in writing a personal condemnation of Donald Sterling. I doubt he (or anyone else) would care if I did, and that ground is pretty well trod already. If you heard what Sterling said, and you don’t already think he’s a total scumbag, then I doubt that any combination of consonants and vowels could possibly convince you.

What I do want to do, however, is unpack what I think is a really revelatory statement made by Sterling in his recorded conversation. When Stivilano presses Sterling on the blatant racist content of the comments he’s made, and how it stands at odds with the fact that the players of the team he owns are predominantly black, Sterling is recorded as angrily responding: … Continue Reading

Share this:

Like this:

It is an interesting thing to observe that whenever I hear the term “real racist”, as in “maybe you’re the real racist here!”, it’s coming from the mouth of a white person. I have never heard a person of colour use this phrase either to a white person, let alone another PoC. I say “let alone” because maybe, just maybe, PoC trust each other to have a pretty accurate working definition of what racism is. Or maybe I’m reading too much into too little.

At either rate, the reason I find this little observation so fascinating is as follows: white people are far less likely (some would say it is definitionally impossible || EDIT: I have been asked to clarify this point, which I have done in a companion post) to experience racism than are PoC. It seems preposterous to assume that you, a person with no experience in the topic under discussion, would be in a position to lecture someone about that topic. It’s textbook ‘splaining. You’d have to have less than a spoonful of self-awareness to fail to see that.

It’s the “oh yeah, well if evolution is true why are there still monkeys?” of racial entitlement and ignorance. … Continue Reading